-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 81
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Raise exception when reading non-UTC adjusted timestamps in parquet #4421
Raise exception when reading non-UTC adjusted timestamps in parquet #4421
Conversation
extensions/parquet/table/src/test/java/io/deephaven/parquet/table/TestParquetTools.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
extensions/parquet/base/src/main/java/io/deephaven/parquet/base/ParquetFileReader.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
7d47d46
to
531bb68
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Workflow updates look fine to me. I'm happy to take an lfs: true
approach for all workflow files as you have done here - the advantage is it's consistent across all workflows. The other approach is to just use lfs: true
for the tests - the advantage is that non-test workflows won't need to download the LFS files. I'm indifferent, at least until a point in time where we have a significant LFS download cost. I'll defer to other reviewers.
Which approach do you think is best, @devinrsmith ? I wonder if we should start from a principal of "good hygiene" and only fetch lfs files for test workflows. Or do we expect to need some in, say, publishing or documentation workflows? |
I'm fine proceeding w/ a principal of "good hygiene" |
Cool, I have reverted back the change to just Check CI and Nightly Check CI jobs. |
Closes #3588
Related to #976
Also moved all parquet files which were stored in the core repo to Git LFS.
Interesting links about Git LFS